Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Biotech / Medical : Ligand (LGND) Breakout! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Hippieslayer who wrote (16265)	3/2/1998 11:16:00 PM
From: Henry Niman	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 32384

FUGAZI, I think that you are totally lost. I formed Progenx in 1987. Ligand was formed in 1989. Most of the receptors that Ligand uses in screening were isolated, sequenced, and characterized between 1985 and 1989 with government funded research. Read the patents. Almost all acknowledge government funding.

To: Hippieslayer who wrote (16265)	3/3/1998 4:13:00 AM
From: HerbertOtto	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 32384

You are probably correct. A couple of thousand little garage shops started up by college drop-outs would certainly get that cancer cure before any well-funded program funded by the citizens of the USA. Look at Apple and Microsoft as examples. In fact, why not ask Bill - with his worldwide tax on computer users, let him pay for it. As far as waste, perhaps we should give the task to the HMOs. They may never cure cancer, but they will certainly make sure that the research scientists don't get more money than they need to solve the problem. If the people of the US ever decide they want cancer cured, and put the appropriate pressure on their reps, it will get done. There may be lots of waste, duplication, and fraud. But it will get done. And when it is all done, plenty of critics will arise to tell us all how it could have been done better by somebody else. And Billions of dollars worth of air time will be spent complaining about it, and investigating it. Many jobs will be created in journalism, books written, speeches given, elections won and lost. But cancer will have been cured. Just like the many projects that our government has accomplished when we wanted them to. And if we are lucky, a whole new economy will be created as a spin-off of the war on cancer... like all of modern technology was kicked off as an offshoot of the moon-race. "... that goal will serve to organize the best in us...". Hopefully, private industry will cure cancer soon without the government. Go LGND, Herbert

To: Hippieslayer who wrote (16265)	3/3/1998 12:45:00 PM
From: Webhead	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 32384

"The war on cancer was only a war on the taxpayer because nothing came of it. The wrong turn into the idea that viruses caused cancer was great for researchers cuz it lined their labs with $$$ but proved zilch that viruses were the cause of cancers( IE the "hit and run" approach that the herpes virus caused cervical cancer(sic)) " I know that the smart thing to do would be to ignore this illinformed, factually incorrect and obviously inflamatory post and just let it become thread compost that quietly rots away in darkness. But I'm in a peckish mood today so I hope a little venting will be tolerated by my fellow boaters on lake Ligand while I fire a shot over the bow of a particularly whining jet ski... 1). Viruses DO CAUSE CANCER. Essentially every case of cervical cancer is due to infection with Human Papilloma virus. Other examples exist in both human and animal cancers but I'm restricting myself to this example because I am most familiar with it and the viral component is as close to proven as is possible in science. I'm actually editing page proofs today of my Journal of Virology paper dissecting some of the biochemical pathways involved in regulating the expression of the HPV oncogenes. Ironic huh? 2). Do universities waste money? I'm sure that they do, especially when examined with 20:20 hindsight. But the overhead charged to grants is necessary to pay for labspace, common equipment, electricity, students and administration (including lots of chemical and radiation safety bureaucracy) as well as those services for other labs that haven't gotten funding. In my limited experience with the granting process and with the administration of overhead my opinion is that the money is very well spent. Stanford was an unusual case but even there, as has already been pointed out, the actual monetary loss was trivial compared to the total funds. 3). Government sponsered research is resposible for the vast majority of advances in cancer research and biotechnology in general. Sure, big pharmas screen THEIR huge libraries of compounds in some assay and go on to develop THEIR drugs that are useful in treating disease. But where do you think they got targets for their screens or even moreso these days the screening process itself? You can't do drug discovery without lots of basic science to identify targets and meaningful assays. I've been fortunate that some very basic research I completed as a graduate student has been incorporated into high level protein expression systems used by IDEC, Genentech, Boehringer Ingelheim and others in products that are going to save a lot of lives and give hope to some cancer sufferers that previously had none. FUGAZI, I certainly hope you approve of the money spent on my pitiful graduate student salary. If this is what you call waste I say lets have more of it! Now if you'll excuse me its back to a full day (and some of the night) of bilking the taxpayer ;) Ed